Bush gets his Iraq funding

WASHINGTONâ??Congress approved a compromise war-funding bill stripped of troop-withdrawal deadlines today as President Bush warned Americans to brace for a "bloody" August in Iraq leading up to a crucial assessment of the war in September.
After months of Democratic pledges to force a timetable for bringing U.S. troops home, the measure passed the Senate on an 80-14 vote shortly after the House voted 280-142 to back it.
The Columbus Dispatch : Bush gets his Iraq funding

This vote isn't "just barely" passing but an overwhelming majority.

I dedicate this lil' song for all you folks that voted Democrat in "06":D
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxqYsELmSu8[/YOUTUBE]

Have good one!:s4:

Good. I was pulling for this myself.

It's a pity the newly declassified information indeed linking bin Laden to al-Zarqawi - proving the former had tasked the latter to set up and organize cells in IRAQ (yes, Iraq, the supposed "no connection to al-Qaeda" land) with the purpose of attacking the U.S. (yes, the United States, not just U.S. sites in Iraq, but the North American country itself) - is not going to get more media attention. Scratch that, it might, but people don't read or watch the news, so it will go right over their heads. For shame.

Thank you, Psycho4Bud, for your thread. That being said, sir, I see the entity that your flag next to "country" represents as part of the problem.

:s4:

I feel for the guys and gals in the Armed Forces of the US and it's contributing allies, it's hard to believe enough in this war to fight for it and difficult to find unbiased facts and truths.

Bush must either have a very personal vendetta or has been strongly convinced that this 'war' will reduce or prevent wars and acts of terror. Politics really aren't my thing anyway, more into philosophy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gigliozzi

Thank you, Psycho4Bud, for your thread. That being said, sir, I see the entity that your flag next to "country" represents as part of the problem.

:s4:

---

Well I'd like to start with a welcome to you and Man Beast to the forums!:thumbsup: As for the flags.....I post the U.S. flag in politics for obvious reasons and the U.N. flag is due to me being a moderator in here. Seems that there are times when this place needs a "Peacekeeping Force"...lol.

Personally speaking, I would LOVE to see us kick the U.N. right the hell out of the U.S.. It's a crooked system that is good for nothing more than passing resolutions that countries laugh at.

Have a good one!:s4:

OMG more neo-cons spewing out truthless facts like the link between Iraq and AL-QAEDA ....YEAH after America invaded they had ties but not before the war some people just never learn do they P4B??

Nice vid P4B are you going to let the fat lady sing when the repukes get their ass kicked in the next pres election???

Sabah Khodada was a captain in the Iraqi army from 1982 to 1992. He worked at what he describes as a highly secret terrorist training camp at Salman Pak (see Khodada's hand-drawn map of the camp), an area south of Baghdad.

What kind of training went on, and who was being trained?

Training is majorly on terrorism. They would be trained on assassinations, kidnapping, hijacking of airplanes, hijacking of buses, public buses, hijacking of trains and all other kinds of operations related to terrorism.
PBS - frontline: gunning for saddam: interviews: sabah khodada

Saddam HAD links..........not no more!:thumbsup:

Well I've heard of putting blinders on a horse but I guess Donkeys wear them too.

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishman3811

Nice vid P4B are you going to let the fat lady sing when the repukes get their ass kicked in the next pres election???

---

Promises in the Dark...........LMAO!

Have a good one!:s4:

Why, thank you, Psycho4Bud, for the welcome (<bow>), and a toast to Man Beast's debut as well. I have been keeping up with these forums for a few months now, but have only recently made up my mind to become a member of this community, in part - perhaps selfishly, I will admit - due to a legal quandary I got myself into for which I was hoping I could get some counsel (see my post in "Legal"). But I'm glad I finally got around to registering for one reason or another, and I'm happy to be here among you people.

As far as Fishman's all-too-popular misbelief is concerned, I would have it in me to write twenty pages worth of threads arguing against it, but I'll settle for jotting down just a handful of additional facts in order to keep Mr. Khodada's lone interview-excerpt some company:

- Photographs taken in 2000 show Nawaf al-Hazmi, Khalid al-Midhar and Salem al-Hazmi and Tawfiz bin Atash at a meeting with Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, an Iraqi intelligence agent. Al-Midhar and the al-Hazmi brothers went on to take part in the 9/11 hijackings, and bin Atash went on to plan the bombing of the USS Cole.
- Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell made public, before the U.N. Security Council on February 6, 2003, evidence that bin Laden met with representatives of Iraq's Special Security Organization (at the time run by Qusay Hussein) on at least eight different occasions.
- In 1998, Saddam vowed to aid Al Qaeda in the area of "weapons development." Writes Stephen Hayes on the Weekly Standard of June 28, 2004: "The following year, according to 9/11 Commission Staff Statement 15, bin Laden took the Iraqis up on their pledge. Farouk al-Hijazi (an Iraqi intelligence officer) told his interrogators in May 2003 that bin Laden had specifically requested [from Iraq] Chinese-manufactured anti-ship limpet mines as well as training camps in Iraq."
- Abdul Rahman Yasin (look him up) was given a house and a monthly salary by Saddam's regime once he returned to Iraq in 1993.
- This one, in my view, should do it for anyone: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was working out of Iraq long before the coalition intervention. When he was wounded by U.S. forces in Afghanistan in May 2002, he went on to be treated at the Olympic hospital in Baghdad, at the time run by Uday Hussein. He began setting up training camps in northern Iraq immediately after his recovery. The U.S. asked Iraq to hand him over on two different occasions. Saddam refused to both times. (Source: section, which has yet to be disproved, of "Deeply Troubling Evidence on Iraq," Powell's case before the U.N. Security Council.)

This is getting way too long, even for the standards of a forum titled "Politics." For the sake of the reader's patience, I will stop here, but without first assuring that there is much, much more to be read on the issue.

Boy somebody has been reading the weekly standard too much lol those so called training terrorist camps in Iraq were training grounds for their counter terrorist units of the Iraqi Intelligence Service .You see in the mid 80s Islamic terrorists were routinely hijacking aircraft.In 1986 an Iraqi airliner was seized by pro-Iranian extremists so they needed to train counter terrorist units.Even the Senate Intelligence Committee reached similar conclusions,describing the Salem Pak facility was there to train officers for counterterrorism.But i guess the Senate committee is wrong and the weekly standard is right lol give me a break......Even the 9/11 commission has stated that Iraq had no links to Al Quade but i guess their wrong too and the weekly standard is right.Even the great GWB has said their is no connection between 9/11 and Iraq.Saddam Hussein hated terrorist groups because he couldnt controll them and they were dangerous.Anybody that he couldnt control he didnt want anything to do with them hence the dictator part of his regime

bush pushed and pushed...no way his intention is going to be ruined by the will of anyone, especially the american people :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Markass

bush pushed and pushed...no way his intention is going to be ruined by the will of anyone, especially the american people :thumbsup:

---

"the measure passed the Senate on an 80-14 vote shortly after the House voted 280-142 to back it."

Can't blame Bush for the actions of the house and Senate...........but I hope ya enjoyed the song!:thumbsup:

Have a good one!:s4:

Boy, I just love Right wing spin doctors, Weekly Standard be damned. Might as well have a memo from Dickhead Cheney, Yeah, for sure it was Sadam who attacked us, LMAO, what other comics have you guys been reading. I guess if you can get a Neo-con rag to back you up then it's the god honest truth, what utter bullshit, please.

I was expecting some kind of "OMG you read the weekly standard your a fucking loser fuck you" type of close-minded reaction of the likes you gentlemen posted. As much as I may have issues with the Weekly Standard myself (along with any other publication that takes whatever side a priori), I defend my use of the excerpt I extracted from it.

I was not quoting a Weekly Standard opinion piece. I was quoting Stephen Hayes, who in turn was quoting the 9/11 Commission Staff Statement 15, which in turn was quoting Farouk al-Hijazi, who in turn was quoting... well, no one, actually, the buck stops there. There's quite a difference, I would say.

So I think it's irrational for you guys to attack the Weekly Standard when all it was doing was quoting a detained Iraqi agent. If you have - and from your ostentatious prejudice, it seems as if you do - an absolutist "Everything printed on the Weekly Standard is bullshit" attitude, if the WS ever quoted Michael Moore in one of its articles as saying that this war was illegal and pointless, then by your own logic, you'd have to say you don't believe or agree with that either, because hey, everything printed in the WS is bullshit, right? Even when it's just quoting others, these others are wrong by proxy.

Even the date printed on the cover of the publication is probably incorrect, I guess. Now that I think of it, I do believe this week's issue is dated October 18, 1992. Fucking lying neo-cons, they all are.

For the record, I am neither a neo-con, nor a "right-wing spin doctor," rather a libertarian-minded independent who believes that lately, too many Americans seem gullible enough to buy into the misinformation created and disseminated by a Democratic Party that will do anything to get in power.

which in turn was quoting Farouk al-Hijazi, ...............................................When you quote one of the Iraqis that was trying to oust Sadam, you lose any credibility, and if you can't see this war is wrong, then you lose all credibility with reasononable minds. To see the big picture you must be able to undrape the American flag from around your eyes and see The US as others see us, That is when you can develop some reasonable thinking. To not question stupidity in government is unpatriotic. Do I support the troops, Hell yeah, I also support reason and there is no coherent reason to be in Iraq. WE are there strictly for one reason OIL. To see any other reasons is to buy into the Neo-con rhetoric and place your self in lockstep with the idiotic Bush regime. If you intend to spout Neo-con rhetoric on this site be prepared to encounter stiff resistance, I myself lean towards libertarianism, but that is about as far from the current Government as one can get. To give credence to the Bush regime, is exactly opposite of libertarianism. BTW Terror is a tactic, not an organization. How can you fight a war on terror?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gigliozzi

I was expecting some kind of "OMG you read the weekly standard your a fucking loser fuck you" .

---

LOL...that shit don't fly in here anymore. We all can have intelligent debate without the insults. To tell ya the truth, it's been kind of nice to post in here since the change. Besides that, being called a democrat or republican SHOULD be bad enough.:D

Have a good one!:s4:

We're a friendly little community here, except when we go for the literary jugular every so often. But what else do you expect when discussing politics?

After this vote, I'm throughly dissapointed with a number of ranking "beltway" politicians. Listen to your constituants, there's a reason Dem's took back Congress last election. And it certainly wasn't to keep this war going.

Several of the grassroots Dem's elected in 2006 did earn my approval, strongly rebuking this capitulation bill and those of the party who made this possible. As for Presidential front runners after this telling moment, if Gore does indeed enter the race he has my unconditional support.

I see Hillary and Obama voted NO. I can respect that with Obama since that was always his stance but what's your feelings about Hillary? In the early days of her campaign she was for going the distance over there until Obama started catching up in the polls. NOW she seems to be all for setting guidelines, pulling the troops, etc.........

How do you see it?

Have a good one!:s4:

Hillary has been a Hawk. Even though her speech explaining her vote for the invasion of Iraq seems balanced, the fact is she voted YES the first time. Now she votes No for continuing, but did it in an almost underhand nature. Leading up to the actual vote she and Obama played coy, refraining from taking a position and waiting for the vote itself to slip quietly in. Yes she voted no, but if that was her position she should have stood strong like SOME dem's and decried this bill from the beginning.

Quote:

---

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.

---

Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of<br>United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Also, she like many of the candidates on both sides she's a representitive of the establishment, those beltway politicans in tight with lobyists and the like. Career politicians are not what this country needs, but thats just an idealistic rant on my part. The system is as it is. It needs to be changed, but this isn't the post to discuss it.

I have nothing against her personally, but her very existance inspires a shocking degree of anger and hatred from the right. While I would love to have Bill back in the White House, I haven't worked through my feelings about his wife.

Then again, I wish this nonsense about "flip-flopping" would stop once and for all. Since when must a person maintain ONE course of action, regardless of the results? It's downright foolhardy. If politicicians are not allowed to revisit issues, we'll forever be trapped making the same mistakes. After all, it's not flip-floppping. It's THINKING.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RamblerGambler

Then again, I wish this nonsense about "flip-flopping" would stop once and for all. Since when must a person maintain ONE course of action, regardless of the results? It's downright foolhardy. If politicicians are not allowed to revisit issues, we'll forever be trapped making the same mistakes. After all, it's not flip-floppping. It's THINKING.

---

IF she was to change her mind based on evidence that would be one thing but it seems her change of opinion went with the polls. So what would be her actual feelings/actions IF elected?

By the looks of this last vote on money for the war.......there are a few that made statements but didn't hold the course when the time come.

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

IF she was to change her mind based on evidence that would be one thing but it seems her change of opinion went with the polls. So what would be her actual feelings/actions IF elected?

By the looks of this last vote on money for the war.......there are a few that made statements but didn't hold the course when the time come.

Have a good one!:s4:

---

Hillary is a snake, the only good thing she has going is Bill for a housemate. If she is the candidate I'll vote for her but I'll vote against her in the primaries. As far as the gutless ones that caved, I hope their constituents hold their feet to the fire in '2008', both on war funding and Immigration. Here's what I have to say on war funding: The Bill is for funding the War, not funding the troops. The "funding the troops" bullshit was thought up by Cheney and Rove to scare the be-Jesus out of the public, especially mothers of troops, and to make the congress tow the line. If funding ran so low that it endangered one troop and that commander didn't pull those troops out of harms way, that commanders carreer would be over, He would face a general courts martial for dereliction of duty and be drummed out of the service. so "funding the troops" is a right wing scare tactic, period.

Well P4B, she seems to still favor the war in Iraq. The latest seems less changing her position IF you believe the floor speech I linked earlier. She's just favoring a change. And of course their is going to be outside influence on her position. If not the polls, then most certainly the results of the 2006 mid-terms. After that you couldn't ignore the issue.

So I'm thinking that even if elected, she's hardly going to "cut and run" if you will. She voted it once and still seems to desire a continuation, which would allow her to avoid any of the "weak on defense" attacks on from the Right. Most likely we'll see her change the course, not Change The Course.

Here's an interesting response out of the Obama campaign today after McCain and Romney's attack on his No vote

[YOUTUBE]YouTube - Barack: Truth On Iraq[/YOUTUBE]

Wow. I take leave for one afternoon, and return to find we've moved on - or should I say, reverted - to pandering Dems. Of course, that's how these message boards work. Pity, I was hoping I could continue a heated exchange with Medicinal.

At any rate, Medicinal, thank you for being a little nicer in your second post than you were in your first one. But for your information, sir, I don't intend to "spout" anything on this site, and I wish you wouldn't accuse me of having already done so. "If you intend to spout Neo-con rhetoric on this site be prepared to encounter stiff resistance..." I can't understand whether that is a considerate warning on your part, or you're trying to scare me into keeping my mouth shut and not sharing my opinions. You may not be fond of discussions that do not adhere to a pre-established party line, but I think a "Politics" forum that worked that way would make for a very uninteresting venue.

As far as presidential hopefuls go, though I am certainly more inclined to lean (is that redundant? inclined to lean?) towards some more than others (can you guess who?), I'm not ready to officially pledge support for anyone in particular so early in the game, and that is in part because I want to continue finding out more about some of the candidates with less name recognition. Besides, though some may disagree, I think it's too early in the race anyway. I know that sounds cliched, but it isn't. It's far too obvious that any current platform of any candidate today will be duly redimensioned as time goes by.

p.s.: I can't comment on the youtube video because my Internet is being a bitch, and won't play it. Maybe later.

Continue, I didn't realize you were an old hand at this. I've only been around for the last week and I've only seen a handful of "regulars." That being said, continue the diatribe you have planned for Medicinal, since obviously that can't be all. Only a single paragraph to how that liberal is stifiling your right to free speech?


I do agree that its way to early to have decided a candadate yet. You've heard Florida's moving up their primary, inspiring leap frogging from most other states wanting to get in on the action? Wonderful! We'll have presidential candadates missing most of the previous year to be campaigning. Kind of like how McCain hadn't voted for a single bill the 6 weeks prior to the Iraq vote.

Thats one of the reasons I hold so much respect for gore. When a newspaper asked him if he was going to run, he just explained he didn't believe in these long term campaigns. It's an intriguing idea. Instead of telling us what they will do with responsibility, candidates instead could SHOW US with their votes. How delightfully novel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gigliozzi

p.s.: I can't comment on the youtube video because my Internet is being a bitch, and won't play it. Maybe later.

---

Pat Benatar....Promises In The Dark

Have a good one!:s4:

I am not going to bother trying to change Medicinalâ??s or anyone elseâ??s mind on the issue of the validity of an Iraq/Al Qaeda/terrorism link, for no other reasons other than it is not the subject of this thread (it appears it was my fault and Fishmanâ??s that we strayed off topic together, giving way to the diversion), and also, it would stretch into too long a discussion, and I'm sure we all wish to move on to newer threads, or stay on topic with this one. (And it is somewhat flattering to see that weâ??ve gone â??hot.â?�)

But if youâ??re really interested in what my counterarguments would have been â?? and not to let anyone think I am dodging anything â?? I suppose I could take the time to counter-argue at least those of Fishman, who was here first.

Fishman attempts to legitimize Iraq's "counter-terrorism" efforts by claiming it was only interested in "protecting" itself from Iran.

When Iraq employs, of all available mercenaries, al-Qaeda operatives to assist it in "counter-terrorism" (I use the quotes repeatedly as means of sarcasm), and rewards their services with funding and equipment, I have little reason to believe the U.S. and Western civilization as a whole has nothing to fear from either party, nor would I be naive enough to believe that Saddam would genuinely be unwitting of al-Qaeda's aims and beliefs. Fishman is right to bring the Iranian tensions into the argument, but (as some of what I wrote above should prove) the jihadist "security contractors," as he might wish to refer to them, have always had plenty of time, devotion and zeal to target all those they see as their enemies. Lawrence Foley, an official of the U.S. Agency for International Development was killed in Amman (Jordan) in 2002. His killer was captured and admitted he had received his orders from al-Zarqawi's cell in Iraq.

Fishman also brings up, predictably enough, the 9/11 Commission report. I am not going to sit here and claim I know better than those who reviewed the information, but I will pass the ball to Christopher Hitchens, as every Iraq War apologist such as myself has cowardly done or will inevitably cowardly do at least once while debating the issue.

YouTube - Christopher Hitchens debates Iraq with Reagan Jr.

If you don't care to watch the video in its entirety, or at all, I will transcribe here the part that should interest us:

HITCHENS: â?¦ When I went to interview Abu Nidal, then the most wanted terrorist in the world, in Baghdad, he was operating out of an Iraqi government office. He was an arm of the Iraqi State, while being the most wanted man in the world. The same is true of the shelter and safe house offered by the Iraqi government, to the murderers of Leon Klinghoffer, and to Mr. Yassin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. How can you know so little about this, and be occupying a chair at the time that you do?
REAGAN: I guess because I listen to the 9/11 Commission, and read their report, and they said that Saddam Hussein was not exporting terror. I suppose thatâ??s how, Christopher.
HITCHENS: Well, then they were wrong, werenâ??t they?
REAGAN: No, maybe they just needed to listen to you, Christopher.
HITCHENS; Iâ??m not sure that they actually did say that. What they did say was they didnâ??t know of any actual operational connectionâ?¦
REAGAN: (interrupting) Thatâ??s right. No substantive operational connection.
HITCHENS: â?¦which was the Iraqi Baath Party andâ?¦ excuse meâ?¦ and Al Qaedaâ?¦ any direct operational connection. Now, thatâ??s because they donâ??t know. They donâ??t say there isnâ??t one. They say they couldnâ??t find one. But I just gave you the number, I would have thought, rather suggestive examples.

Needless to say, I'm with Hitchens (and I do remind you that, as with any report from either side, there is considerable criticism of how the 9/11 Commission has conducted their research, but I guess you might expect me to say that), as in a) In order for the 9/11 Commission or any other review party (including the Senate Intelligence Committee, which was incredibly biased, and days away from the Congressional election when they issued the report Fishman mentions) to assert an unquestionable operational connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda, they'd need to have ironclad proof of the kind such as a photo of Saddam himself (head of the Baath party) shaking hands with bin Laden, with a bubble over his head that says, "I work with Osama, I am well aware he leads al-Qaeda, and I am in fact willingly and remorselessly aiding al-Qaeda.â?� But they donâ??t, so they are mandated to give everyone and everything the benefit of the doubt. And whether Iraq is exporting terror or not has nothing to do with whether it is sheltering wanted terrorists and providing them with immunity, such as Abu Nidal, or Abu Abbas, the murderer of Klinghoffer that Hitchens does not name, who was apprehended almost immediately after the murder but could not be detained because he possessed an Iraqi passport. Abbas was free to return to Iraq unscathed, and once there, Saddam refused to extradite him and, as he did to Yasin, gave him a house (a villa, to be exact) and money.

Some hardcore skeptics might take the Commissionâ??s viewpoint and give Saddam the benefit of the doubt, but I get the feeling these same people would not waste a second pointing the finger at President Bush and claiming Bush knew and was responsible for everything the moment any of his subordinates is discovered to have done something questionable.

Finally, Fishmanâ??s last assertion, the one about Saddam refusing to have any terrorist groups on his turf, is mere speculation, not actual fact, and I donâ??t think it deserves an argument. I would, however, like to remind Fishman that (this according to the confessions of an al-Qaeda operative captured and still being detained by the U.S.) through a series of meetings held in the Sudan in the mid-90â??s between bin Laden and top Iraqi officials, the former and his organization had agreed to cease terrorist activities against the Iraqi regime (not in Iraq, but against it).

Okay, this post has gotten way too long, and I havenâ??t even gotten to counter-arguing Medicinalâ??s claims. And I wonâ??t, either. Not because I think I canâ??t, but because I really believe this post does not need to be any longer or more off-topic than it already has been. If anyone prompts me to go on about Medicinalâ??s argument, I might continue, but until then, Iâ??ll just assume nobody gives a shit.

Any confessions taken from a Al-Quada terrorist under torture from an American is totally mute.Your going to say anything under those circumstances and any information you get from someone that you just tortured isnt very reliable.